VIDRINE VS. MULLINER (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court addressed two independent grounds for dismissal. As to the cross-appeal, the court's analysis turned on the timeliness requirements of NRAP 4(a). The court issued an order to show cause why the cross-appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting the notice of appeal was filed January 23, 2026 - more than 30 days after service of notice of entry of the challenged order and more than 14 days after electronic service of appellant's notice of appeal on December 30, 2026. See NRAP 4(a)(1), (8). Respondent contended that the 14-day cross-appeal period began on January 9, 2026, the date appellant's notice of appeal was docketed in the Supreme Court. The court rejected that contention, applying NRAP 4(a)(3), which provides: "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal no later than 14 days after the date when the first notice was served, or within the time otherwise prescribed by Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." Because the certificate of service attached to appellant's notice of appeal certified service on respondent's counsel on December 30, 2025, the 14-day period ran until January 13, 2026. Respondent's January 23, 2026 filing was ten days late. The court further held that even crediting respondent's assertion that she was misadvised regarding the filing deadline, the time to file the notice of appeal is mandatory, and the court could not extend it under the circumstances presented, citing NRAP 26(b)(1)(A) ("[T]he court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal except as provided in Rule 4(c)."). Lacking jurisdiction over the cross-appeal, the court dismissed it, citing Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987). As to appellant's direct appeal, the court recounted that on April 6, 2026, it permitted appellant's counsel to withdraw and directed appellant, by May 6, 2026, to retain new counsel and have counsel enter an appearance, move for an extension to retain counsel, or inform the court in writing that he would proceed pro se. After appellant failed to comply, the court on May 8, 2026, directed compliance by May 22, 2026, cautioning that failure to timely comply could result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. Appellant did not comply or otherwise communicate with the court. Concluding that appellant had abandoned his appeal, the court dismissed it.

In plain language

This case began with a family-law dispute over custody of a child. In December 2025, a district court judge in White Pine County granted a request to change the custody arrangement and ruled that each side would pay its own legal fees and costs. Both parties were unhappy with parts of the outcome: the father, Timothy Vidrine, filed an appeal, and the mother, Anistasia Mulliner, filed a cross-appeal (a separate appeal by the opposing party in the same case). The Supreme Court of Nevada never reached the merits of either appeal. Instead, the case was dismissed for two separate procedural reasons. First, the court found that the mother's cross-appeal was filed too late. Under the appellate rules, once one party files a notice of appeal, the other party generally has 14 days from when that first notice was served to file their own appeal. The father's notice of appeal was served on the mother's counsel on December 30, 2025, which meant the mother had until January 13, 2026, to file. She did not file until January 23, 2026 - ten days after the deadline. The mother argued that she did not realize an appeal had actually been filed until early January and that her attorney was told by the clerk's office that the 14-day clock started when the appeal was docketed in the Supreme Court. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the deadline runs from when the first notice of appeal was served, not from when it was docketed in the Supreme Court. The court also explained that even if the mother had been given incorrect information about the deadline, the filing deadline is mandatory and the court could not extend it under these circumstances. Because the cross-appeal was untimely, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction (the legal authority to hear the case) and dismissed it. Second, the father's own appeal was dismissed for a different reason. After his attorney was allowed to withdraw, the court repeatedly directed him to either hire new counsel, ask for more time, or tell the court in writing that he would represent himself. He was warned that failing to respond could result in his appeal being dismissed as abandoned. He never complied or communicated with the court, so the court dismissed his appeal as abandoned. The end result is that neither side's appeal was decided on its substance; both were dismissed for procedural reasons.